Loading…
Chapter 4 (Rules 4.0 to 4.5): ex parte communication with court-appointed or court-connected child custody mediators and child custody evaluators prohibited except as allowed by statute and California Rules of Court, including Family Code section 216 and CRC 5.235 (4.0); child custody evaluations and evaluators under CRC 5.220 et seq., the qualifications, training, continuing education and experience of CRC 5.225 and CRC 5.230, an evaluator who does not meet them appointed only in the circumstances permitted by CRC 5.225, no peremptory challenge to a court-appointed evaluator, a private evaluator with good cause for withdrawal to notify the parties in writing, complaints about a court-connected evaluator in writing to the Court Executive Officer and about a private evaluator to the evaluator and then the licensing or regulatory board, and information posted on how to find qualified evaluators (4.1); complaints about court-appointed counsel for a child in writing to the Court Executive Officer, who in consultation with the Presiding Judge will investigate (4.2); courts issuing criminal protective orders and courts issuing child custody or visitation orders to make reasonable efforts to determine whether the other orders exist, and a court that issued a criminal protective order able to modify it after consultation to allow or restrict contact between the restrained person and his or her children (4.3); complaints about mediation services in writing to the Court Executive Officer (4.4); the services of the Family Law Facilitator under Family Code section 10004 and the additional duties of Family Code section 10005 as required by the court (4.5).
California > Third Appellate District > Sutter County > Superior Court of California, County of Sutter
CHAPTER 4 - FAMILY LAW RULES 4.0 EX PARTE COMMUNICATION IN CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS Ex parte communication with court-appointed or court-connected child custody mediators and/or child custody evaluators is prohibited except as otherwise allowed by statute and California Rules of Court, including Family Code section 216 and CRC 5.235. (Effective 7/01/13) 4.1 COURT-ORDERED CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS (a) Implementation of CRC 5.220 All child custody evaluations must comply with CRC 5.220 et seq. (b) Child Custody Evaluators, Requirements All child custody evaluators must comply with CRC 5.220 et seq., including, but not limited to, requirements regarding qualifications, training, continuing education, and experience set forth in CRC 5.225 and CRC 5.230. In the event no evaluator that meets the requirements of CRC 5.225 is willing and available to perform an evaluation, the court may appoint an evaluator that does not meet the requirements under the circumstances permitted by CRC 5.225. (c) Peremptory Challenge to a Court-Appointed Evaluator Peremptory challenges to any court-appointed child custody evaluator are not allowed. (d) Evaluator’s withdrawal If a court-appointed private evaluator has good cause for withdrawal, he or she must notify the parties in writing. The parties may stipulate to the appointment of an alternative evaluator. (e) Procedure for complaints Any party’s complaint regarding a court-connected evaluator’s performance must be in writing and addressed to the Court Executive Officer. Complaints shall be as specific as possible in describing what the evaluator did or did not do. The Court Executive Officer or his/her designee will investigate, evaluate, and respond to the complaint in due course. Nothing in these rules precludes any person or public agency from pursing rights afforded them by any other statute or rule of law. Complaints regarding private child custody evaluators may be discussed directly with the evaluator and, if not resolved informally, should be directed to the appropriate licensing/regulatory board. (f) List of Qualified Evaluators The court will ensure information is posted, in those areas that serve family law litigants, regarding how to find qualified evaluators in the jurisdiction. (Effective 7/01/13) 4.2 COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL FOR A CHILD (a) Complaints Any party’s complaint regarding the performance of court-appointed counsel for a child must be in writing and addressed to the Court Executive Officer. Complaints shall be as specific as possible in describing what the attorney did or did not do. The Court Executive Officer or his/her designee, in consultation with the Presiding Judge, will investigate, evaluate, and respond to the complaint in due course. Nothing in these rules precludes any person or public agency from pursing rights afforded them by any other statute or rule of law. (Effective 7/01/13) 4.3 COMMUNICATION REGARDING CRIMINAL PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND CHILD CUSTODY/VISITATION ORDERS Courts issuing criminal protective orders shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether any child custody or visitation orders exist that involve any party to the pending criminal action. Court staff shall, at a minimum, check reasonably available resources to determine such information. Courts issuing orders involving child custody or visitation shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether a criminal court protective order exists that involves any party to the pending civil action. Court staff shall, at a minimum, check reasonably available resources to determine such information. A court that has issued a criminal protective order may, after consultation with a court that has issued a subsequent child custody or visitation order, modify the criminal protective order to allow or restrict contact between the person restrained by the order and his or her children. (Effective 7/01/13) 4.4 MEDIATION OF CUSTODY AND VISITATION (a) Complaints Any party’s complaint regarding mediation services must be in writing and addressed to the Court Executive Officer. Complaints shall be as specific as possible in describing what the mediator did or did not do. The Court Executive Officer or his/her designee will investigate, evaluate, and respond to the complaint in due course. Nothing in these rules precludes any person or public agency from pursuing rights afforded them by any other statute or rule of law.(Effective 7/01/13) 4.5 DUTIES OF FAMILY LAW FACILITATOR In addition to the services set forth in Family Code section 10004, the Sutter County Superior Court’s Family Law Facilitator may, as required by the court, perform the additional duties listed in Family Code section 10005. (Effective 7/01/13)
CHAPTER 4 - FAMILY LAW RULES 4.0 EX PARTE COMMUNICATION IN CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS Ex parte communication with court-appointed or court-connected child custody mediators and/or child custody evaluators is prohibited except as otherwise allowed by statute and California Rules of Court, including Family Code section 216 and CRC 5.235. (Effective 7/01/13) 4.1 COURT-ORDERED CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS
Reviewer note: Transcribed 2026-10-11 (California T4 Sutter build 2026-10-11) by eye from BenchPath custody ca/t4/ca-sutter/docs/pdfs/LocalRules/Local Rules Amended 7-1-2018.pdf (the court's rule book, its cover “SUTTER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT”, “LOCAL COURT RULES”, “EFFECTIVE July 1, 2013”, “AMENDED January 1, 2017; July 1, 2017; July 1, 2018”, as fetched 2026-10-11; 12135865 bytes, sha256 43c9a3416cb426ae558e9731ce62361ef6fc429bc2159a99b5fe7d569bf77e7e; 30 pages, scanned page images with an invisible OCR text layer; this chapter PDF pages 13 to 15, printed pages 10 to 12): read on the page images rendered at 200 dpi (vision/render.py); checked against two machine readings never published (RapidOCR on each page, vision/ocr-batch.py, and the file's own invisible OCR text layer, which the scanner made), the running header and the page numbers dropped from both: every 6-word window of the transcription looked up, and every window is found in a reading (vision/check-log.txt). Each printed paragraph, heading and list item is set as one line, a two-column list one row per line with its cells separated by “ | ”; the apostrophes, quotation marks and dashes are set as printed, each read on an enlarged crop of the page image; the running header (“Superior Court of California, County of Sutter”) and the page numbers are not part of the text; the transcription's closing note, which describes the pages, is not published. Review note: Carried as printed: “pursing rights” in Rules 4.1(e) and 4.2(a) (Rule 4.4(a) prints “pursuing rights”).
Division XI: information forms for data processing (Rule 11.2); required action - action taken on all calendared cases and a future date always set (Rule 11.19); and pro tem judges - an attorney named as a plaintiff in a civil or small claims case may not sit as a judge pro-tem during the case or within six months following its resolution, nor one named as a defendant in two or more such cases (Rule 11.22). Rules 11.1, 11.3 to 11.5, 11.7 to 11.18, 11.20 and 11.21 are repealed, and Rule 11.6 (voluntary arbitration; see Local Rule 10.2) was repealed and renumbered.
Duval County's indigent-defense and magistration rules under the Texas Fair Defense Act (S.B. 7): who may be booked into the county jail and on what paper; arrest-case numbering; presentment to a magistrate within 48 hours (art. 15.16); the magistrate's warnings, counsel inquiry, interpreter duty, indigence determination and appointment of counsel within 24 hours of a request; the alternative appointment plan under art. 26.04(g)-(h) with annual applications, seven attorney categories (capital, first and second degree, third degree/state jail/misdemeanor, competency, appeals, post-conviction, extradition), CLE and experience standards, random rotation within each category, written acceptance within 48 hours, first contact by the end of the next working day, replacement and suspension of counsel, fee applications within five days of completing services and the compensation attachment ($500 pleas; $175/$150 hourly; $1,400 per jury-trial day; appellate caps); bail schedules by offense class with a personal bond office (fee $20 or 3%), pre-trial supervision and revocation hearings within two working days; arraignment settings and notice; repeal of conflicting rules.